This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
But you said above you weren't talking about legality, just legitimacy, because currently they haven't broken any laws right?
Is your position now as long as they don't break any laws, whoever they pick is legititimate?
No—the point re the above is to point out the process is not just an internal matter. This isn’t just “well the Dems can pick whoever in whatever manner you want — why are you complaining about an internal party approach.”
And my response is there must be some reason why we’ve done things this way for well over fifty years. There must be some reason why the elections are run by state governments (kind of odd that the state regulated the election for the Dems when the stated position is “it’s just an internal matter.) and the reason is it isn’t just an internal manner. One of who the republicans and democrats pick will be president. The primary is supposed to be some form of internal quality control (a mini pressure cooker before the general pressure cooker). The Dems charted a path where they knew they might need to replace Biden but because they thought they could win choose to eschew the mini pressure cooker for the replacement candidate (and indeed if they had that mini pressure cooker it never would’ve been Harris). So now because the Dems failed, the country is left with the real possibility Harris will be president. That’s a real problem.
And I can equally say that the Republican convention picking a convicted felon is a real problem*, which the Republicans have now done and therefore they are breaking their own established norms and there must have been some reason they don't pick criminals, right? And thus the internal quality control performed by the Republicans is hopelessly compromised. But the truth it is is doesn't matter whether I think that, only whether Republicans accept the outcome or do not. As long as it was done legally, it is entirely up to Republicans to pick their candidate.
If I say that Trump is an illegitimate pick due to the above will that change your mind suddenly? Assuming not, why would you think Democrats will in the reverse situation?
*I don't actually think Trump is a bad candidate, but pretty clearly picking an convicted felon is highly unusual for them.
I’m saying we have had for a very long time a process by which we picked candidates. Republicans utilizing that process picked their candidate.
The democrats used that process, decided they didn’t like it, and are now creating a new process post hoc.
The two are just not the same.
The Democrats changed their process multiple times in the past. But regardless of all that, when was the last time they had a candidate step down after the primaries?
Is your claim that decision is illegitimate? How so? You can't force someone to run, if they have decided not to, so therefore now they must try to come up with another choice. Failing to do so would be a dereliction of their duty.
They didn't decide they didn't like the candidate and replace him, the candidate stepped down. If they had tried to replace Biden without him stepping down then you may have had a point.
It has to be permissible to replace your candidate, if they die or step down. If Trump had been assassinated would any replacement have been illegitimate? Clearly not, I would argue. If Biden had a stroke, likewise. Replacing your candidate is unusual. But as long as it is done legally with the candidate choosing to step down or being unable to continue, then i can't see a reason it should be presumed illegitimate.
It may or not be a good decision. But that isn't the same thing.
Come on. This wasn’t “Biden just decided to step down and we can’t force him to run.” He stepped down kicking and screaming. The party was inflicting pain until he stepped down and would’ve escalated the pain.
The party forced him out to get a new candidate. Anything else is pure fancy.
And none of that matters a jot. Doesn't matter how much pressure was put on him behind the scenes. That's normal politics. He stepped down. He could have chosen not to, no-one could have forced him. Being briefed against, or maneuvered against is politics 101. You may not like that, but that is the situation. Being pressured is a legitimate political tactic. Happens everywhere. David Cameron called the Brexit referendum because he was facing internal political pressure form his own back benches. It was still a legitimate referendum. Liz Truss stepped down because of huge pressure from her own side. Her ousting was perfectly legitimate.
It is telling you touch on parliamentary politics which have totally different norms compared to the American political system.
Do they? Are you sure about that? The legal frameworks are quite different, but the underlying politics is basically identical.
You are the chosen of your party with all the support in the world, until you are not. Then they brief against you and pressure you to step down/change course.
I'd suggest my position seems to more accurately reflect what is actually happening than yours. It is being seen as legitimate by the Democrat base.
It probably won't be enough to beat Trump, in any case.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link